Hacker News Reader

Comment by saalweachter | Hacker News Reader

It looks like there are roughly 128k public EV charging stations in the US, of which 28k are DC fast chargers, of which 17k are Tesla Superchargers and 6600 are CSS chargers.

So NACS is beating CSS roughly 3:1, but J1772 still outnumbers NACS something like 5:1.

View on HN

You can plug a J1772 plug into a CCS car without an adapter, and you can't plug it into a Tesla/"NACS" car without one. I think it's meaningfully true to treat J1772 as CCS for this purpose.

Tesla Destination Chargers are public EV charging stations that aren't DC fast chargers but are NACS. You appear to be counting them all as J1772 instead.

Hmmm, fair point.

Looks like there are around 4000 Tesla Destination Chargers in the US; that shifts the numbers to more like 32:7:2 for J1772:NACS:CSS.

J1772 should never have existed, IMO. It's pitiful 19.2 kW maximum charge rate hurt EV adoption by continuing the idea that it takes hours to charge your car.

In the conversation of NACS versus CSS, J1772 shouldn't even be part of the conversation. It's simply not relevant.

You frame the argument the way you want it to end.

CSS is a fraction of the US fast chargers; NACS is a fraction of the total US EV chargers.

NACS is used by 2/3rds of the existing BEV fleet; CSS/J1772 is used by 2/3rds of the existing plug-in EV fleet.

Ford and GM recently announced they will be using NACS for new electric vehicles. NACS is the standard.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com